Is Big Bang True? Physics and SR/GR

[Tanelorn]

Well I don't actually "believe" in anything these days, but it is a fact that The Big Bang model is the prevailing cosmological theory of the early development of the universe.


Also for evidence we have:

The earliest and most direct kinds of observational evidence are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, the abundance of light elements (see Big Bang nucleosynthesis), and today also the large scale distribution and apparent evolution of galaxies[47] which are predicted to occur due to gravitational growth of structure in the standard theory. These are sometimes called "the four pillars of the Big Bang theory"


I am wondering if belief is the right word for the original question or the replies.

 

[zonde]

I believe that the universe is static

There is nothing wrong with that. You have to start somewhere.

and 1 day i'll try to prove it

You can't do that. At least using scientific method. You can't even disprove Big Bang model as one can always update model in the light of new evidence. Actually this is part of science.

If that was not so this one observation would have disproved Big Bang:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1824"

But what you can actually do is propose model that explains observations better that existing model and makes better predictions about possible future observations.

The thing about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method" is that it does not allow you to prove theory but only to separate poor theories from good theories.

I like this quote that is given in wikipedia under article about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism" :

Peirce's approach "presupposes that (1) the objects of knowledge are real things, (2) the characters (properties) of real things do not depend on our perceptions of them, and (3) everyone who has sufficient experience of real things will agree on the truth about them. According to Peirce's doctrine of fallibilism, the conclusions of science are always tentative. The rationality of the scientific method does not depend on the certainty of its conclusions, but on its self-corrective character: by continued application of the method science can detect and correct its own mistakes, and thus eventually lead to the discovery of truth".

 

[zahero_2007]

No , big bang is wrong because it asserts our universe arose from a singularity which is wrong , Instead colliding branes models avoids the initial singularity .

 

[Chalnoth]

No , big bang is wrong because it asserts our universe arose from a singularity which is wrong , Instead colliding branes models avoids the initial singularity .

That's the entirely wrong way to look at things. The Big Bang Theory is a highly accurate description of our universe back to very early times. While it does make some statements about what happened even earlier, those statements are nonsensical and the theory cannot be taken seriously in that regime.

There are many ideas for what happened in that regime. Colliding branes is one of them. It is absolutely not the only way to avoid the initial singularity. At present, what went on in that regime is mostly speculation, though we do have some limited evidence.

 

[phinds]

No , big bang is wrong because it asserts our universe arose from a singularity which is wrong , Instead colliding branes models avoids the initial singularity .

We may find out one day that you are right, or we may find out you are wrong, but for today your categorical assertion that it was colliding branes that started out universe is theological (non-falsifiable) not scientific.

 

[Drakkith]

No , big bang is wrong because it asserts our universe arose from a singularity which is wrong , Instead colliding branes models avoids the initial singularity .

The big bang makes no assertions to my understanding. Or rather it says something akin to "our model breaks down beyond a certain time" and does not specifically claim that it arose from a singularity.

 

[zahero_2007]

So the big bang theory is not the correct way to explain the origin of the universe but it can rather describe approximately the universe beyond a certain time .

 

[phinds]

So the big bang theory is not the correct way to explain the origin of the universe but it can rather describe approximately the universe beyond a certain time .

Yes, and generally that time is taken to be the Plank Time which is about 10E-43 seconds.

 

[lyy1992]

I'm also very interested on Big Bang Theory before. I think that the Big Bang theory is neither correct nor wrong, but is the best way to explain the origin of the universe by now. I don't know how the point ball of space before the Big Bang can store so much energy that created all of us, but this theory is predicted by looking the sky. All stars and galaxy are moving away! I don't say that the theory is correct but, who know it is the truth?

Either the universe is expanding or not, it depends on how you view the universe! The red shift detected from stars suggested that the universe is expanding, one point for Big Bang theory. But if you look at the red shift, the effect of red shift is being transmitted million years ago, we know that the universe is expanding before, but not necessary for now. I don't know what is happening on the sky there by now, so we are studying history.

What I can say is the human life is too short for us to make observation. Well, at least we can make a foolish prediction so that the future generation can refer on it.

 

[phinds]

I'm also very interested on Big Bang Theory before. I think that the Big Bang theory is neither correct nor wrong, but is the best way to explain the origin of the universe by now.

No, the big bang theory does NOT predict the origin of the Universe, it describes everts after the Plank time and it absolutly IS correct.

Either the universe is expanding or not, it depends on how you view the universe! The red shift detected from stars suggested that the universe is expanding, one point for Big Bang theory. But if you look at the red shift, the effect of red shift is being transmitted million years ago, we know that the universe is expanding before, but not necessary for now. I don't know what is happening on the sky there by now, so we are studying history.

No, that is not correct either. The universe IS expanding.

What I can say is the human life is too short for us to make observation. Well, at least we can make a foolish prediction so that the future generation can refer on it.

No, that is not correct either. Physicsts have made THOUSANDS of observations (probably MUCH more than that) and they all tell a coherent and consistent story. There are holes in our knowledge, but your belief that we operate from total ignorance it just silly.

 

[1mmorta1]

Why do you feel so ardently that the big bang theory is wrong? To be skeptical is one thing, but to blatantly disregard evidence is another...
Do you have a religious or other non-scientific objection to the big bang?

 

[DaveC426913]

Why do you feel so ardently that the big bang theory is wrong? To be skeptical is one thing, but to blatantly disregard evidence is another...
Do you have a religious or other non-scientific objection to the big bang?

Who is this directed towards?

Not sure any of the detractors are being ardent. More like mere indefensible superstition.

 

[phinds]

Who is this directed towards?

Not sure any of the detractors are being ardent. More like mere indefensible superstition.

Dave, I though that post was an appropriate response to Ivy1992's post, which is nonsense, although yeah, the "ardent" was a stretch.

 

[DaveC426913]

Ivy1992's post, which is nonsense

True.

Wasn't sure if it was directed at zahero too/instead.

 

[1mmorta1]

Oops! I made that post with my phone, I guess it didn't quote who I wanted to. It was to that junchiriki guy, who believes the universe is static (I don't remember how his user name is spelled). Although I suppose it could apply to several posters on this thread.

I used the term blatant, not ardent ;)

 

[jtbell]

It was to that junchiriki guy

...who last posted to this thread nearly four months ago.

 

[1mmorta1]

...who last posted to this thread nearly four months ago.

Apologies, on my phone all I noticed was that this thread was trending. I saw his posts about how the big bang was false and thought I'd ask a most obvious question.

I'm not a big forum guy, this is the first time I've really been active on one- I'll make sure to keep an eye on such things from now on :)

 

[Jocko Homo]

Why do you feel so ardently that the big bang theory is wrong? To be skeptical is one thing, but to blatantly disregard evidence is another...
Do you have a religious or other non-scientific objection to the big bang?

Oops! I made that post with my phone, I guess it didn't quote who I wanted to. It was to that junchiriki guy, who believes the universe is static (I don't remember how his user name is spelled). Although I suppose it could apply to several posters on this thread.

I used the term blatant, not ardent ;)

In both cases, the emphasis is mine...

 

[lyy1992]

Whoa, ok, I just skeptical on it, so I made a suggestion. Well, very obvious that the suggestion is wrong, you may simply ignore it. I got to study more about it.
Sorry for nonsense reply, but I think it is possible.

 

[DaveC426913]

but I think it is possible.

Well, anything is possible when one has no facts. But from thence comes faeries, ghosts and unicorns too.

 

[phinds]

Well, anything is possible when one has no facts. But from thence comes faeries, ghosts and unicorns too.

+1 on that

 

[1mmorta1]

In both cases, the emphasis is mine...

Man, I can't believe I didn't realize that I said ardent...I must now dedicate myself to physics for the remainder of my natural life in order to make up for this...

Haha. Thank you for pointing that out :)

 

[LaurieAG]

You said it DaveC426913, I agree 100%

Well, anything is possible when one has no facts. But from thence comes faeries, ghosts and unicorns too.

I came across one of Chronos' old posts in a locked thread that put things in a similar perspective.

Mathematical artifacts aside, the burden of proof is upon you to falsify my model, not me.

But these statements mean that anything that falsifies the model is against forum rules so asking questions where only dissenting answers are against the forum rules and not the original questions themselves is the way to comply.

Does that mean any model resembling our universe, that is based on the application of something like a higher level (field, cyclic, period) construct with only 1 real cycle, that has many sub parts with independent infinite/VL number limits, is equivalent to multiple discrete improper integrals that should not remain linearly undefined or artifacts of Pi will be expected to start popping up to hilight the original falsification under the burden of truth?

I'm all in agreement so far.

So something as simple as the the latest time back to the big bang divided by the time back to our own solar systems creation should never be be considered as an artifact because we are just viewing ancient light as our solar system spins around our own galactic centre? And the artifact that you get when you divide a Galactic year (the time light travels while a source makes 1 complete galactic rotation) by the diameter of the galactic rotation in years is also misconstrued because Pi is what you would expect when you were viewing spiral light paths in linear observation experiments?

I'm still in agreement but I think you forgot about banshees and the pooka.

 

[phinds]

I'm still in agreement but I think you forgot about banshees and the pooka.

HEY ... leave the pooka out of this. I believe in the pooka. The world NEEDS the pooka

 

[DaveC426913]

But these statements mean that anything that falsifies the model is against forum rules so asking questions where only dissenting answers are against the forum rules and not the original questions themselves is the way to comply.

No, you can falsify a model using current, accepted research to show a contradiction. What you can't do is introduce research that has not been accepted.

But yes, this not the forum suited to falsifying current models. Primarily, this is a forum to help students learn and understand science as it is currently understood. Not much point in people trying to run before they've learned how to walk.

 

[Agerhell]

I have always found Arp's ideas fairly convincing. This does not mean I also agrees his points of view on gravity, which are very exotic. But now we even have a quasar which has a relatively nearby galaxy in the background...

[Crackpot link removed]

Who can doubt that at least some of the redshift is intrinsic?

If there really is a picture of a quasar in front of a galaxy I would like to see it. Perhaps someone could provide a link to a picture of that configuration on some website that is not considered a "crackpot" site. Please insert such a link if you know anything about it.

 

[wildwill]

im with jinkurichi300 on this one

how can matter be created.

"matter can neather be created nor destroyed only change form."

thats why i don't believe in the big bang



red shifts could be caused by gravitational lensing of light being bent by gravity of larger objects.


please tell me. could the galexies that appear to be redshifted just be rotating on an elips around the center of the universe, but on a different elips then ours

 

[Drakkith]

im with jinkurichi300 on this one

how can matter be created.

"matter can neather be created nor destroyed only change form."

thats why i don't believe in the big bang

Matter can be and is created and destroyed all the time. We do it in particle colliders every day here on Earth. ENERGY and MASS cannot be destroyed or created, only transferred. Furthermore, the theory of the Big Bang never says that this energy was created from nothing. It only describes the universe after a certain point in time after the Big Bang. What happened before this point in time is beyond that model.

red shifts could be caused by gravitational lensing of light being bent by gravity of larger objects.

Light does not redshift when it is bent around something, only when it moves out of a gravity well. On average there will be equal mass in front of and behind a photon as it moves through space, so the amount of redshift would be counteracted by an equal amount of blueshift.

please tell me. could the galexies that appear to be redshifted just be rotating on an elips around the center of the universe, but on a different elips then ours

There is no center of the universe nor would a rotation around a common center explain the observed redshift.

 

[phinds]

Wildwil, you are continuing to post wildly speculative stuff with no basis in science. I again suggest that you read some basic comsmology.

 

[jinchuriki300]

If you have learned about Compton scattering, you'll understand the energy of quanta decreases, this happens because photon collides with electron and change its direction and give electron some energy, thus, photon loses some of its energy